The Mark Rein interview on the Guardian Unlimited (thanks
BeyondUnreal) offers a conversation with the Epic executive, discussing the
company, its games, the Unreal engine, and PCs versus consoles, offering this
outlook: "I'm a real fan of the PC, but yes, consoles are definitely stealing a
lot of hardcore gamers from the PC. When Call of Duty 4 came out, I heard some
of our guys sitting around talking about the great game they'd had last night
and I'm like, 'Hey guys, what server are you playing on? I'd love to come and
join you,' and they said, 'Just send us a friends request,' It was at that point
I realized they were all playing it on console. Plus, the sales of the console
versions are something like ten times the sales of the PC versions."

In all honesty most consoles today are PC's in sheeps clothing. They have internal drives, built in NIC's etc. The caliber of the FPS games are pretty good but I still find the PC equivalents to be more indepth and have far more controls. If they really want to get people to switch, I personaly would want full keyboard and mouse support in any FPS game available on the console. Aslo the whole pay to play on private game networks kind of bugs me.

Mark Rein is like almost every other FPS PC game developer -- they know the $$ are in consoles and they are finding ways of rationalizing their switch to console development when interviewed. Folks from Valve and Bungie have made similar statements in the press.

I once considered myself one of the 'hardcore elite', exclusively playing pc games and not owning a console. But I decided to get a 360 to sit next to my pc, and it's since become the gaming arm of my whole setup.The problem has come as I'm due an upgrade (I'm one of many still with a 6800GT), but there's nothing worth upgrading for. Everything I could want is on the 360. Sure, aiming in COD4 is balls, but the immersion is ramped up with analogue walking. Seriously, analogue walking: it's ace I still want starcraft 2, and... Well actually that's it. That's the only exclusive pc game I want. I simply can't remember a time when I haven't been forced to upgrade, and that day has come. It's a sad day. I'll still use my comp for the odd game, but the 360 is a tour de force experience, and one that has changed my view of consoles entirely.

I was playing that at a friends place and I really like it, I think it adds alot more realism to the game.

Realism? How is it realistic to be able to see and aim at your enemies while you are completely behind cover? Cover should be risk v.s. reward. The reward is that you are protected from enemy fire. The risk is that you can't see what your enemies are doing. The risk v.s. reward is what makes it balanced. With R6:V's cover system, there is no risk and thus, the intensity and realism of the game is greatly depleted.

personally, I think if ATI and nVidia hadn't gotten greedy and started charging 400-600 bucks for the high end video cards. People wouldn't have gotten turned off by PC and moved over to consoles.

There used to be a time when 200 bucks could net you the best video card in existence in the TNT/TNT2 days even the Voodoo2 add on cards didn't go higher than that I believe.

But at some point, the cost of video cards skyrocketed. And then they tacked on stupid gimmicks like SLI and Quad SLI. People bought right into it too, believing they had to have it or else they'd be missing out, which was total bullshit.

No one is disputing the dominance of consoles in the realm of game sales. Lamenting it for how it has lowered the standard of gaming in general, but not disputing it. No one is whining, so quit the ad hominem attacks and insults.

If I can't play a FPS or RTS without a gamepad, then I don't want to play it. It's that simple.

And the myth that you have to spend $500 on a videocard in order to play PC games has been debunked a million times. I paid 165 bucks for an ATI 3850 that gets me incredible performance in the latest games.

“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.” - Mahatma Gandhi

personally, I think if ATI and nVidia hadn't gotten greedy and started charging 400-600 bucks for the high end video cards. People wouldn't have gotten turned off by PC and moved over to consoles.

There used to be a time when 200 bucks could net you the best video card in existence in the TNT/TNT2 days even the Voodoo2 add on cards didn't go higher than that I believe.

But at some point, the cost of video cards skyrocketed. And then they tacked on stupid gimmicks like SLI and Quad SLI. People bought right into it too, believing they had to have it or else they'd be missing out, which was total bullshit.

No wonder people got sick of PC gaming.

I used to be a k/m elitist too, but guess what. If you don't quit your whining and start to at least get used to gamepads, its you that's going to be missing out on the good games in the future, not the people who have chosen to move on and adapt. As long as there are PCs, there will always be PC gaming, but you're deluding yourself if you don't believe that consoles rule the market right now.

I really shouldn't be so hard on Crysis... I've been playing it recently, and honestly, I think it's a decent game which suffered from being technically ahead of its time (as well as having some corny and predictable dialog).

Honestly, just because a new game sets the "top end" bar a little higher doesn't mean it's worth upgrading for. Just because TRESPASSER set the hardware bar in '98 doesn't mean everyone ran out to buy or upgrade their computers.

To put it simply : if you're going to upgrade, make sure you have a damn good reason to. Just because a game is pretty doesn't mean it's worth putting down $1000 to make it run better. My dual-core 5200+ (2.6 ghz) and X1800XT runs the game on medium decently, and I'm happy with it. I'm sure that if I spent $150 on a new graphics card, it'd be significantly better, but I can't really justify spending that kind of money for just one game. Maybe in 3-6 months.

Nice place, cheaper parts then I can get here, lower taxes, damn you Albertans, shakes fist. Well at least I am not freezing my balls off Ya the X800 was a good card, I had no complaints about it, I got it dirt cheap for like $170. But it doesnt cut it anymore, Bioshock wasnt a DX10 problem it was a DX9 shader 3 problem, the X800 wasnt quite up to DX9 specs. There are a couple of other games out now that do the DX9 shader3 and my card will not run them. I tried out world in conflict and with everything turned to lowest settings I get bad lag at times. Crysis, runs, but with no shaders at all Far Cry looks better then Crysis on my rig. Point being my PC is done if I want new games. I didnt say I spend 2K a year, I do that about every four years, you said you spent 1k on this PC but youll probably put another 1k into it in minor upgrades over the next four years. Its just rediculus to suggest, like others have, that PC gaming isnt any more or much more expensive then console gaming, its way more expensive no matter which way you cut it.

We were here before consoles, and we will be here after consoles.

Unless you were in at MiT or one of the other high tech places consoles were here long before PC's, consoles have always out sold PC and always will, we have been and always will be the fringe of video game entertainment.

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." Benjamin Franklin

Your points are extremely valid, and indeed I used to use the exact same ones in debates. I've since come to the realization that, sad as it may be, I am no longer the target audience for these developers. As such, who can blame them for not listening to me? I really like Turn-based strategy games. But that's not where the mainstream target audience lies. Nor is it in flight sims, another of my loves from long past. Hardcore FPS's? Not one the target consumer is after. I have officially become the "niche".

One ray of hope that I see, although concerns of 'dumbing PC games down' for consoles are extremely valid, is that it seems that consoles have actually risen closer to the level of PC games, making the "ports" a little more bearable. Before Oblivion, all console RPG's starred super-deformed doughy-eyed cartoon characters with goofy names and had inscrutable plots and incessant random encounters. Games like Assassin's Creed weren't even possible on consoles until very recently. "Mass Effect" proves to me that console games have at least started to grow up.

“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.” - Mahatma Gandhi

edit: Isn't the whole point to bring more people into gaming, thus boosting its popularity and social acceptance?

No, the whole point is to make good games. Unfortunately, maximum profits requires that you dumb down games and cater to the lower standards and short attention spans of the masses. What's the point of increasing gaming's popularity if all games are made for retards?

If they're gaming, and having fun, what right does another group of people have to tell them they're "not doing it right"?

Because sales figures determine what games are made and how they are made? God of War introduced the mainstream audience to button prompt sequences (or quick time events, however you want to call it). Now every damn game has them. Halo introduced regenerating health to the mainstream audience. Now every shooter has it. RE4 introduced that retarded side-shoulder cam and now every third-person game uses it. Gears of War introduced the cheap cover system to the mainstream and now every third-person shooter uses it. CoD4 has grenade indicators and since it sold very well, I'm sure all future shooters will have grenade indicators too.

The games that sell well affect all the games in the future. If shitty games sell well, they infect all future titles. This is why it matters what other people play.

Wow - there's a lot of elitism going on here. Look, I heavily favor PC Gaming for reasons I previously stated and others I haven't, but still... Gamers are gamers. I don't think anyone who plays UT3 on PS3 for 3 hours a day is any less intelligent, scrupulous, or hardcore than me or anyone else simply because I prefer to do it on PC. It's okay to think your platform of choice is the obvious superior choice; choice is a wonderful thing. But it seems a little excessive to start looking down on others for their choices.

“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.” - Mahatma Gandhi

Its the console kiddies who have been convinced that FPS games on a console are OK with a gamepad and auto-aiming crud. Unfortunately money talks and it is console games that are selling. Note that I regularly play on consoles but not FPS games.